If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Do you support the right of a nine-year-old girl to walk into a hardware store and, without signing anything or producing identification of any kind, pay cash for a submachinegun, several hundred rounds of ammunition, and a supply of morphine?

Um, no, it's not. The test presumes that the 9 year old has the right to enter, purchase, and possess the firearm without precondition. One of those preconditions considered waived would be the store owner's judgement.

Rights are unequivocal. The right to vote can't be contingent on the judgment of the ballot supplier. The right to speech cannot be contingent on the opinion of the microphone supplier.

Even if you do provide for the gun seller's judgment in your scenario, the instant an individual uses the gun to inflict harm, the issue of the seller's negligence comes into play. The argument is simple: the gun seller should have known that the 9 year old was incapable of responsible gun ownership. He sold her the gun anyway. Therefore, when she was playing with her friend and blew his brains out, the act was foreseeable and the gun seller should be held liable.

Apply this to every situation - mental distress, convicted felons, minors - and soon you have gun liability strict enough to satisfy even the most stringent fantasies of the left. Sure, you could sell a firearm to that guy. But if you do a background check for felonies and mental defects, you wouldn't risk being sued out of business in a week.

Quick question for you Feebmaster: Do you support the RIAA's ability to sue (on behalf of their clients) those who download copyrighted works of music without paying royalties to the RIAA?

Um, no, it's not. The test presumes that the 9 year old has the right to enter, purchase, and possess the firearm without precondition. One of those preconditions considered waived would be the store owner's judgement.

I disagree. Nothing in the test precludes the right of the store owner to do or not do business with anyone they see fit.

Originally Posted by biccat

Rights are unequivocal. The right to vote can't be contingent on the judgment of the ballot supplier. The right to speech cannot be contingent on the opinion of the microphone supplier.

The right to vote, if you want to call it that, is contingent on the judgment of the ballot supplier. The ballot supplier is the government and they can revoke your right to vote for any number of reasons.

Microphones aren't required to exercise your freedom of speech, but even assuming they were, I'm sure you could find a retailer or manufacturer who would be more than happy to supply you with one.

Originally Posted by biccat

Even if you do provide for the gun seller's judgment in your scenario, the instant an individual uses the gun to inflict harm, the issue of the seller's negligence comes into play. The argument is simple: the gun seller should have known that the 9 year old was incapable of responsible gun ownership. He sold her the gun anyway. Therefore, when she was playing with her friend and blew his brains out, the act was foreseeable and the gun seller should be held liable.

I disagree in general that the gun/drug seller should be held liable, but even assuming they could or should be, that has nothing to do with the right of the nine year old to purchase the guns or drugs or the right of the business owner from doing business with the customers they choose to service.

Originally Posted by biccat

Apply this to every situation - mental distress, convicted felons, minors - and soon you have gun liability strict enough to satisfy even the most stringent fantasies of the left. Sure, you could sell a firearm to that guy. But if you do a background check for felonies and mental defects, you wouldn't risk being sued out of business in a week.

You always risk being sued and out of business in a week. Background checks for felonies and mental defects aren't going to prevent that anymore than they're going to prevent said criminals and mental defectives from getting guns.

Originally Posted by biccat

Quick question for you Feebmaster: Do you support the RIAA's ability to sue (on behalf of their clients) those who download copyrighted works of music without paying royalties to the RIAA?

RIAA can sue whomever they want. I think they're idiots for doing so, but it's up to them. Frankly, if the RIAA and company had spent half as much time, money, and energy on coming up with a halfway decent digital distribution system that allowed people to buy things online for a reasonable price instead of trying to fight technological advances tooth and nail, online piracy probably wouldn't have gotten as big as it is, although it certainly it would still be around.

Basically, they were lazy and they've screwed themselves. They wanted the government to ensure their profits without innovating on their own. Now people have an expectation of free, or close to it, music without unpleasant DRM schemes built in. It doesn't matter how many people they sue now. The cat's out of the bag.

She should be immediately declared an enemy combatant, arrested, stripped of all rights and shipped to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba unless she’s Arab in which case she should be sold the items with no questions asked because anything less would be racial profiling.

What do I win?

“Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.”
James "Mad Dog" Mattis

That little girl is packing some serious coin for a 9 year old. There are other questions to be asked here. What are her motives. Was she selling girl scout cookies and got jumped by a gang that beat up her fellow girl scout. The morphine and machine gun might be valid purchases. :D